iced
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 6,620
Do you really believe that? After everything you have seen and heard being done - Do you honestly believe LA is not their Option A?
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Status
Do you really believe that? After everything you have seen and heard being done - Do you honestly believe LA is not their Option A?
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 35,026
- Name
- Stu
OK. I will be unlocking the thread now. I really don't see anything over the top with the following exceptions:
As has been stated time and again, when you start saying things like, "this we all know", or "the facts are", or "he is definitely......" you are going to agitate anyone who sees "the facts" different than do you - especially when you don't have evidence to back up these "facts".
There is also a little too much talking down to others going on right now. Remember to act like you are discussing the Rams across the table from the other while enjoying your favorite adult beverage. Don't say things or say them in a way that would make the person want to reach across the table except to maybe high five you. Stu the bouncer can have a short fuse at times and won't hesitate to toss you out on the sidewalk if you are acting like a jerk to others.
That all being said - carry on.
As has been stated time and again, when you start saying things like, "this we all know", or "the facts are", or "he is definitely......" you are going to agitate anyone who sees "the facts" different than do you - especially when you don't have evidence to back up these "facts".
There is also a little too much talking down to others going on right now. Remember to act like you are discussing the Rams across the table from the other while enjoying your favorite adult beverage. Don't say things or say them in a way that would make the person want to reach across the table except to maybe high five you. Stu the bouncer can have a short fuse at times and won't hesitate to toss you out on the sidewalk if you are acting like a jerk to others.
That all being said - carry on.
iced
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 6,620
http://www.101sports.com/2015/06/15/six-reasons-to-believe-the-rams-will-stay-in-st-louis/
Six Reasons to Believe the Rams Will Stay in St. Louis
Posted by: Randy Karraker in National Football League, Uncategorized June 15, 2015
The past week was a notable one in the NFL-to-Los-Angeles saga.
The league’s Los Angeles relocation committee heard from the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers about their L.A. stadium plans and progress, and about any progress on stadiums in their current cities.
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster filed a motion to have Governor Jay Nixon removed from a suit filed by six legislators that claims Nixon overstepped his legal bounds.
Koster maintains the suit doesn’t hold any water because they can’t “allege any actions taken by the Governor at all, much less any action taken in excess of his authority.”
Then the City of St. Louis joined the legal fray, claiming city law says a new stadium must be adjacent to an existing convention facility, and Nixon’s task force’s riverfront stadium plans are not adjacent.
Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s approach in his desire to move the Rams to L.A. has been intriguing to say the least. He hasn’t participated in any pursuit of a new stadium in St. Louis, and has failed to communicate with Nixon or his stadium task force. All the while, he’s been planning a new stadium in L.A..
Many Rams fans in Los Angeles believe it’s fate that the franchise will relocate. I admit, I don’t know what’s going to happen. But, I don’t think it’s going to be as easy as those fans do.
Here’s why:
1) Stan Kroenke may not have the votes he needs. Kroenke, more than buying a franchise, signed on to join an exclusive club when the NFL approved him to be an owner in August, 2010. As in any club, there are rules. If you join an exclusive golf club, you can’t wear jorts and a t-shirt. If you do, you don’t get to enjoy the privileges accorded other members.
To move, Kroenke would require votes from 24 other owners. If he tries to do so without approval, as former Raiders president Amy Trask told Jim Thomas of the Post-Dispatch in January, there are “safeguards (that) are really draconian. They involve financial penalties and other penalties that really should deter teams from doing things like that without (league approval).”
2) The NFL’s relocation guidelines have changed. There’s a belief that this race to Los Angeles between the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers can be compared to the franchise free agency of the 1990’s, but there is no comparison. The only real guidelines in place back then were to go to the league and tell them you were moving. The NFL was afraid of the costs of anti-trust suits from the teams the league feared it would lose. After the Colts, Cardinals, Rams, Raiders, Browns, and Oilers switched cities, the NFL implemented their current guidelines. Those measures that Trask spoke of weren’t in place, not to mention all the hoops a franchise must jump through now.
The last thing the NFL wants is to set a precedent and open the door to more franchise moves simply because an owner wants to make more money for himself. Some think those guidelines won’t apply, but I believe longtime owners want to avoid the chaos of the late 90’s.
3) Stan Kroenke still isn’t following NFL ownership rules. Kroenke has until the end of this month to meet the league’s guidelines on cross-ownership. League rules say that he can’t own an NFL team in one market, and franchises from other leagues in which an NFL team resides.
Kroenke owns the Colorado Avalanche and Denver Nuggets, but the Denver Broncos reside in that city, as well.
When Kroenke finalized the Rams purchase in August, 2010, the league gave him until December of last year to financially divest himself of the Avalanche and Nuggets. He didn’t, and last October Kroenke received an extension until the end of this month to comply.
As of June 15, both team’s websites list Kroenke as their owner.
Is the NFL going to give Kroenke another extension?
And do they really want to play ball on relocation with a man who so openly ignores league rules?
4) The Chargers and Raiders have put forth a viable plan in Carson, California. As Vincent Bonsignore of the Los Angeles Daily News reported, that plan is offering something the NFL has desired for quite some time…land for a west coast wing of the Hall of Fame and acreage for NFL Network studios.
As Carson project point man Carmen Policy told Bonsignore of his message to the committee, “Don’t put yourself in an enclosed mall. Don’t put yourself in an arena setting. This is the kind of atmosphere and fan experience the fans in Southern California would want.”
Policy also noted that two co-tenants moving to L.A. at one time makes sense so there isn’t a landlord-tenant relationship, like there was for so many years with the Jets and Giants at Giants stadium.
5) The Rams can’t be counted on to get it right in Los Angeles. Also according to Bonsignore, the Rams (who didn’t comment on their presentation) had a message to the committee that “The NFL has one shot to get it right in L.A. and that’s the Rams in Inglewood.” With due respect to our local franchise, how can they be expected to get it right?
In Kroenke’s 20 seasons of part-ownership or ownership, the team has had four winning seasons. They’ve gone through eight head coaches. Their personnel department has drafted three players in the last fifteen years that have made a Pro Bowl.
An iconic franchise like the Lakers, with sixteen World Championships, had to slash ticket prices this season, cutting $400 tickets down to $119, to get people to come to games. The Lakers won back-to-back titles in 2009 and 2010, capped three straight finals appearances, and still fans turned their backs.
How will the L.A. populous react to a team that hasn’t had a winning season in eleven years and had the worst five year stretch in history? Can you really trust them to get it right?
6) The Chargers are due. Chargers owner Dean Spanos, as has been mentioned by his front man Mark Fabiani many times, has tried for fifteen years to get a new stadium in San Diego. His family has worked hard with the NFL to get a deal there. San Diego is a great Super Bowl city and would practically be guaranteed a Super Bowl per decade if they built a stadium.
Yet, the powers that be in San Diego, through seven different mayors, have yet to provide a representative offer for the Chargers, who have been involved in ten different stadium plans. Spanos has voiced this issue with owners for years, and there’s much belief among people that cover the league and the Chargers that he has the votes to block a Rams move to Los Angeles.
___________________
Of course, any success for St. Louis depends on the success of the Peacock-Blitz task force. If San Diego or Oakland are able to get a stadium plan together, that changes the situation. There are questions, but at the moment, momentum for a stadium in St. Louis is still strong, and there’s little belief that San Diego or Oakland can get something done.
If momentum stays strong for St. Louis, it makes much more sense for the NFL to fix their California problems in California, and block Kroenke from moving the Rams.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...Gray-5-Topics-on-Rams-Future-in-St-Louis.aspx
Gray: 5 Topics on Rams' Future in St. Louis
The drama continues to unfold regarding the NFL in Los Angeles, the St. Louis Rams' future and the related outlooks of the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders, respectively.
With that, here's a look at five topics relevant to the NFL in St. Louis.
Rams Revving Up For Relocation?
Last week, Vincent Bonsignore of the L.A. Daily News updated the prospective relocation possibilities of the Rams, Raiders and Chargers after each of the three clubs met with the NFL's Committee on L.A. Opportunties. Specifically, Bonsignore asserted that the Rams are building a case for relocation based upon the following:
"The Rams declined comment, but their thinking seems clear: They are selling their site and their long history in Los Angeles as the keys to insure a successful return to Los Angeles, while also being willing participants in helping the Chargers and Raiders secure financially beneficial new stadiums and futures.
With a ready-made fan base in L.A., the financial might of a multi-billionaire owner and an extravagant stadium on a site Los Angeles fans are familiar with, the Rams are pushing their plan as NFL’s best bet for a successful re-entry into the second-biggest market in the country after a 20-year absence.
The message: The NFL has one shot to get it right in L.A. and that’s the Rams in Inglewood.
Meanwhile, by working together with the Chargers and Raiders, and with room to add another team, perhaps one team comes on as a partner and the other gets a helping hand building a new stadium in their current market.
In doing so, all teams objectives will be met."
Regardless of how you may feel about Bonsignore's report, let me share a few comments and pressing questions related to the aforementioned information:
-The Rams reportedly feel that Inglewood and the Rams is the best bet for Los Angeles. Obviously, however, that does not necessarily make it true. If you ask Carmen Policy, after all, he would insist that a Carson site for the in-state Raiders and Chargers is a better option for the league and the market. This reported assertion from the Rams proves nothing in and of itself.
-If the Rams long history in L.A. equates to a guarantee of success there, then why did they move in the first place? Obviously, if the Rams being in L.A. automatically corresponds to prosperity for the franchise, then the Rams would have never left.
The notion that the Rams franchise is the only one of the three clubs that could be sure to get it right in L.A. is laughable, especially when considering that they have produced just four winning seasons in the last twenty five years -- a quarter century -- and had more time than either of the other two franchises to get it right in L.A. -- five decades -- and still eventually fought to move from the market. If anything, the fact that they were there the longest and still couldn't figure it out should be a strike against them, not for them.
-Kroenke is a multi-billionaire and significantly wealthier than Chargers owner Dean Spanos or Raiders owner Mark Davis. True. But Goldman Sachs is backing the Carson project and their assets dwarf those of Kroenke. So, in relation to the NFL in L.A., this supposed Kroenke edge is not necessarily as significant of an advantage that some would deem it to be.
-The Rams are not the only franchise with some portion of a ready-made fan base in Los Angeles. All three teams could make that claim to one degree or another. Many indicators suggest that the Raiders are still the market's favored team, including this one. Either way, each of the three teams have respectable backing in the city/region and would undoubtedly pick up masses of additional fans within the market upon moving there.
-Kroenke originally bought 30 percent of the Rams on the explicit precondition that the organization be allowed to move to St. Louis and away from the L.A. area.
If Kroenke and the Rams are the best bet to get it right in L.A., then why did Kroenke purchase a large minority interest in the organization based upon a strict agreement that they be allowed to exit the L.A. market in 1995? Why are the Rams the best bet to get it right this time when they obviously did not accomplish that end when they were there before?
-Of the three owners involved, Kroenke is the only one who worked to ensure his franchise move away from L.A. when the franchise was located there. With that understood, why then should he get first crack at getting L.A. back, particularly with the market he moved to working hard to provide him with another new stadium?
-Common sense would indicate that Kroenke would not be willing to offer to assist two other teams in finding stadium solutions if he were confident that Inglewood could or would prevail over Carson on even terms. It clearly speaks to the vast progress that has been made of late by Carson.
In my estimation, this reported tactic by Kroenke was not a move made from a position of power, but rather, a reactionary counter made from a compromised position in an effort to gain an upper hand that he does not feel he currently has.
If Kroenke did not feel that extreme measures were needed to gain support for a prospective Rams move to Inglewood, then clearly the aforementioned plan of attack would not be one being considered for utilization.
-If Kroenke is truly willing to help the Chargers and Raiders gain successful stadium resolutions in some way, shape or form -- with one of those team being a possible addition in Inglewood while working with another to somehow assist them in their current market -- how is Kroenke remotely acting in good faith towards St. Louis when doing nothing whatsoever to work with the Task Force here?
Simply put, he is not -- as should be obvious.
How would him offering to help anywhere and everywhere but in his current market possibly be acting in good faith and in a manner that the other NFL owners could justify voting for? How could they support him ahead of two owners who have worked much longer to find stadium solutions at home while playing in the league's two most antiquated venues all while having an alternative plan that would keep them in-state if they move?
It was already evident that Kroenke was not working with St. Louis and the Task Force when Governor Nixon said recently that he has not spoken to Kroenke regarding stadium efforts in the last 18 months. You can bet that the Governor has shared this information with Commissioner Roger Goodell, too.
If Bonsignore has this pegged, then Silent Stan is working diligently to get out of his current market, instead of working diligently to find a solution within it -- as required by the same relocation rules that he agreed to when signing on to become majority owner of the St. Louis Rams.
Using the assumption that Kroenke is simultaneously working to (a) move the Rams to L.A., (b) considering helping two other franchises attain new facilities and (c) doing nothing to work towards or consider what may eventually be a fully approved stadium plan in St. Louis, one can conclude that Kroenke is not remotely working within the confines of the NFL's relocation guidelines and bylaws.
-Even if Kroenke is indeed willing to go to these extreme measures, there are no guarantees that Spanos and/or Davis will choose to work with Kroenke under his terms rather than work in Carson or at home under their own. For that matter, there is no certainly that the NFL would fall in line to back a complete shunning of a local market and Task Force that will likely have a stadium plan ready to go by the fall that has worked in lock-step with the league throughout the entirety of the process.
Is Dean the Don Regarding Relocation?
San Diego Chargers owner Dean Spanos may have as much control over what eventually does or does not occur regarding the NFL in Los Angeles as anyone.
Why?
Specifically, Spanos is highly respected, influential and well regarded by the consensus of NFL owners. Additionally, some assert -- such as Kevin Acee of UT San Diego -- that Spanos currently has the votes secured to block St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke from moving to L.A. if he ultimately attempts to do so. It doesn't hurt Spanos' cause that he has been seeking a facility resolution for nearly 15 years.
Thus, this could go one of two ways -- barring unforeseen progress in the Chargers home market of San Diego:
On on hand, Spanos could theoretically strike a deal with Kroenke on a joint venture into the City of Angels. If that were to occur, he would call off the dogs, per se, and ask owners to allow Silent Stan to leave St. Louis. Relocation guidelines or not, if Spanos gives the Committee on L.A. Opportunities a thumbs up towards an attempted Kroenke move, it would seemingly increase Kroenke's chances of gaining approval to do so.
On the other hand, if Spanos -- who apparently isn't a fan of Kroenke -- continues to line up support to block Kroenke and/or gains approval to move to Carson, it will be a no-go for Stan in regard to attaining the votes necessary for relocation. The league is not going to approve both Carson and Inglewood.
In short, if Spanos continues to pursue Carson, he is building a strong case -- with the help of former NFL executive Carmen Policy -- to triumph over Inglewood. However, if Stan can convince Spanos to work on a joint project in Inglewood, then Kroenke would have a much easier time securing relocation approval.
Meanwhile, let us not forget that the St. Louis Task Force will ultimately have a say on how things play out. After all, if St. Louis is the only local market to secure an approved new stadium plan, it will be tough for the league to justify a Kroenke move -- if ultimately attempted -- irregardless of the stance that Spanos eventually settles upon.
Task Force Entrenched
The St. Louis Task Force remains optimistic that they will successfully navigate through a variety of challenges to ultimately keep the NFL in St. Louis.
But what about the Rams?
To be clear, the folks working steadfastly to secure a new downtown riverfront stadium development remain focused first upon retaining the city's current franchise.
Once again, that has not changed.
Could that approach eventually be adjusted? Sure. But it will not be altered unless the time comes that it becomes necessary to do so, and that stage has not yet been reached.
Looming Lawsuits
On a related note, sources close to the situation continue to express confidence in the likelihood of positive resolutions being obtained regarding city and state level stadium lawsuits and the ultimate realization of the necessary funding required for a new downtown NFL-centered development.
With an important NFL league meeting coming quickly in August, it is obvious that the sooner these things can be put to bed, the better it is for pro-stadium efforts.
Silent Stan
After extensively studying Kroenke's history in recent years, one thing has become clear: he is a world-class poker player capable of hiding his true intentions even from those closest to him.
In addition, nothing gets out of Kroenke's camp that isn't intended to get out of Kroenke's camp.
Furthermore, anyone thinking they have Kroenke's specific intentions figured out are almost always guessing several moves behind his ultimate end game.
What am I getting at here?
While things appear to be clear in some regards as to what Kroenke does or does not want in relation to the Rams, there are indications from his past that what we think we see may not be what we are seeing.
Yes, he has made it appear clear that he is strongly interested in Los Angeles. If he were not doing so, he would not be (a) in position to potentially gain that market, (b) watching St. Louis move at a very rapid pace to secure funding for a new stadium designed to keep the Rams and/or (c) also setting himself up for other lucrative potential end games.
What does he truly desire in the end?
Please keep in mind that Kroenke has no reason not to pursue Inglewood vigorously at this time.
Why?
At this moment, there are no cemented, absolute guarantees that the local Task Force is going to close on securing public funding for a new riverfront stadium development.
With that understood, why would Kroenke not move forward aggressively in L.A. -- even if considering St. Louis -- when knowing that there is at least some possibility that local stadium efforts somehow falter in the end?
With Carson moving quickly, a sit-back-and-wait approach from Kroenke would put him in position to be blocked from L.A. and possibly miss out on public funding in St. Louis.
That, of course, would be a lose-lose proposition.
Right now, Kroenke is moving towards a win-win.
In the end, he is going to win with his land in Inglewood regardless of whether an NFL stadium is ever built there. That is irrefutable.
If the nation's eight largest landowner ends up doing nothing more in Ingelwood than what he still does as his day job -- develop real estate -- he will still generate a terrific economic gain via his purchase there.
If St. Louis comes through and he (a) decides to stay or (b) attempts to move but does not prevail, then he ultimately will obtain a new state of the art venue at home and garner a myriad of new revenue streams while increasing his franchise value significantly -- all without paying any relocation fees or other related moving costs.
Thus, like it or not, Kroenke is playing it smart in many ways. He's moving towards victory, regardless of whether he winds up in L.A. with the Rams, in L.A. with another team, in L.A. with an expansion franchise, in Denver with the Broncos or in St. Louis with the Rams.
It may be an ugly way to do business and it may be hated in St. Louis, but Kroenke is likely going to come out ahead in one way or another, regardless of how it all plays out.
That is, unless he is already pushing things too far both in regard to his reported aggressive approach towards L.A. and his lack of communication with St. Louis.
What if his complete shunning of St. Louis backfires at the league level and his obvious disregard for the league's relocation rules comes back to bite him? And what if he ultimately poisons the Gateway City well to the point that the fan and corporate base will not fully support the Rams with him at the helm?
Kroenke is walking a bit of a tightrope with his ultra-aggressive play. These types of plays usually either win out big or flame out badly. One gets the feeling that both outcomes are real possibilities at the moment.
Denver, anyone? An Inglewood retail center?
Who knows. An array of end games remain possible. The Rams to L.A. is obviously a very viable possibility depending on how a variety of things play out. In turn, the Rams remaining in place is a real option as well, again, depending on how certain factors come together over the next few months.
Stay tuned...
Six Reasons to Believe the Rams Will Stay in St. Louis
Posted by: Randy Karraker in National Football League, Uncategorized June 15, 2015
The past week was a notable one in the NFL-to-Los-Angeles saga.
The league’s Los Angeles relocation committee heard from the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers about their L.A. stadium plans and progress, and about any progress on stadiums in their current cities.
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster filed a motion to have Governor Jay Nixon removed from a suit filed by six legislators that claims Nixon overstepped his legal bounds.
Koster maintains the suit doesn’t hold any water because they can’t “allege any actions taken by the Governor at all, much less any action taken in excess of his authority.”
Then the City of St. Louis joined the legal fray, claiming city law says a new stadium must be adjacent to an existing convention facility, and Nixon’s task force’s riverfront stadium plans are not adjacent.
Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s approach in his desire to move the Rams to L.A. has been intriguing to say the least. He hasn’t participated in any pursuit of a new stadium in St. Louis, and has failed to communicate with Nixon or his stadium task force. All the while, he’s been planning a new stadium in L.A..
Many Rams fans in Los Angeles believe it’s fate that the franchise will relocate. I admit, I don’t know what’s going to happen. But, I don’t think it’s going to be as easy as those fans do.
Here’s why:
1) Stan Kroenke may not have the votes he needs. Kroenke, more than buying a franchise, signed on to join an exclusive club when the NFL approved him to be an owner in August, 2010. As in any club, there are rules. If you join an exclusive golf club, you can’t wear jorts and a t-shirt. If you do, you don’t get to enjoy the privileges accorded other members.
To move, Kroenke would require votes from 24 other owners. If he tries to do so without approval, as former Raiders president Amy Trask told Jim Thomas of the Post-Dispatch in January, there are “safeguards (that) are really draconian. They involve financial penalties and other penalties that really should deter teams from doing things like that without (league approval).”
2) The NFL’s relocation guidelines have changed. There’s a belief that this race to Los Angeles between the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers can be compared to the franchise free agency of the 1990’s, but there is no comparison. The only real guidelines in place back then were to go to the league and tell them you were moving. The NFL was afraid of the costs of anti-trust suits from the teams the league feared it would lose. After the Colts, Cardinals, Rams, Raiders, Browns, and Oilers switched cities, the NFL implemented their current guidelines. Those measures that Trask spoke of weren’t in place, not to mention all the hoops a franchise must jump through now.
The last thing the NFL wants is to set a precedent and open the door to more franchise moves simply because an owner wants to make more money for himself. Some think those guidelines won’t apply, but I believe longtime owners want to avoid the chaos of the late 90’s.
3) Stan Kroenke still isn’t following NFL ownership rules. Kroenke has until the end of this month to meet the league’s guidelines on cross-ownership. League rules say that he can’t own an NFL team in one market, and franchises from other leagues in which an NFL team resides.
Kroenke owns the Colorado Avalanche and Denver Nuggets, but the Denver Broncos reside in that city, as well.
When Kroenke finalized the Rams purchase in August, 2010, the league gave him until December of last year to financially divest himself of the Avalanche and Nuggets. He didn’t, and last October Kroenke received an extension until the end of this month to comply.
As of June 15, both team’s websites list Kroenke as their owner.
Is the NFL going to give Kroenke another extension?
And do they really want to play ball on relocation with a man who so openly ignores league rules?
4) The Chargers and Raiders have put forth a viable plan in Carson, California. As Vincent Bonsignore of the Los Angeles Daily News reported, that plan is offering something the NFL has desired for quite some time…land for a west coast wing of the Hall of Fame and acreage for NFL Network studios.
As Carson project point man Carmen Policy told Bonsignore of his message to the committee, “Don’t put yourself in an enclosed mall. Don’t put yourself in an arena setting. This is the kind of atmosphere and fan experience the fans in Southern California would want.”
Policy also noted that two co-tenants moving to L.A. at one time makes sense so there isn’t a landlord-tenant relationship, like there was for so many years with the Jets and Giants at Giants stadium.
5) The Rams can’t be counted on to get it right in Los Angeles. Also according to Bonsignore, the Rams (who didn’t comment on their presentation) had a message to the committee that “The NFL has one shot to get it right in L.A. and that’s the Rams in Inglewood.” With due respect to our local franchise, how can they be expected to get it right?
In Kroenke’s 20 seasons of part-ownership or ownership, the team has had four winning seasons. They’ve gone through eight head coaches. Their personnel department has drafted three players in the last fifteen years that have made a Pro Bowl.
An iconic franchise like the Lakers, with sixteen World Championships, had to slash ticket prices this season, cutting $400 tickets down to $119, to get people to come to games. The Lakers won back-to-back titles in 2009 and 2010, capped three straight finals appearances, and still fans turned their backs.
How will the L.A. populous react to a team that hasn’t had a winning season in eleven years and had the worst five year stretch in history? Can you really trust them to get it right?
6) The Chargers are due. Chargers owner Dean Spanos, as has been mentioned by his front man Mark Fabiani many times, has tried for fifteen years to get a new stadium in San Diego. His family has worked hard with the NFL to get a deal there. San Diego is a great Super Bowl city and would practically be guaranteed a Super Bowl per decade if they built a stadium.
Yet, the powers that be in San Diego, through seven different mayors, have yet to provide a representative offer for the Chargers, who have been involved in ten different stadium plans. Spanos has voiced this issue with owners for years, and there’s much belief among people that cover the league and the Chargers that he has the votes to block a Rams move to Los Angeles.
___________________
Of course, any success for St. Louis depends on the success of the Peacock-Blitz task force. If San Diego or Oakland are able to get a stadium plan together, that changes the situation. There are questions, but at the moment, momentum for a stadium in St. Louis is still strong, and there’s little belief that San Diego or Oakland can get something done.
If momentum stays strong for St. Louis, it makes much more sense for the NFL to fix their California problems in California, and block Kroenke from moving the Rams.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...Gray-5-Topics-on-Rams-Future-in-St-Louis.aspx
Gray: 5 Topics on Rams' Future in St. Louis
The drama continues to unfold regarding the NFL in Los Angeles, the St. Louis Rams' future and the related outlooks of the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders, respectively.
With that, here's a look at five topics relevant to the NFL in St. Louis.
Rams Revving Up For Relocation?
Last week, Vincent Bonsignore of the L.A. Daily News updated the prospective relocation possibilities of the Rams, Raiders and Chargers after each of the three clubs met with the NFL's Committee on L.A. Opportunties. Specifically, Bonsignore asserted that the Rams are building a case for relocation based upon the following:
With a ready-made fan base in L.A., the financial might of a multi-billionaire owner and an extravagant stadium on a site Los Angeles fans are familiar with, the Rams are pushing their plan as NFL’s best bet for a successful re-entry into the second-biggest market in the country after a 20-year absence.
The message: The NFL has one shot to get it right in L.A. and that’s the Rams in Inglewood.
Meanwhile, by working together with the Chargers and Raiders, and with room to add another team, perhaps one team comes on as a partner and the other gets a helping hand building a new stadium in their current market.
In doing so, all teams objectives will be met."
Regardless of how you may feel about Bonsignore's report, let me share a few comments and pressing questions related to the aforementioned information:
-The Rams reportedly feel that Inglewood and the Rams is the best bet for Los Angeles. Obviously, however, that does not necessarily make it true. If you ask Carmen Policy, after all, he would insist that a Carson site for the in-state Raiders and Chargers is a better option for the league and the market. This reported assertion from the Rams proves nothing in and of itself.
-If the Rams long history in L.A. equates to a guarantee of success there, then why did they move in the first place? Obviously, if the Rams being in L.A. automatically corresponds to prosperity for the franchise, then the Rams would have never left.
The notion that the Rams franchise is the only one of the three clubs that could be sure to get it right in L.A. is laughable, especially when considering that they have produced just four winning seasons in the last twenty five years -- a quarter century -- and had more time than either of the other two franchises to get it right in L.A. -- five decades -- and still eventually fought to move from the market. If anything, the fact that they were there the longest and still couldn't figure it out should be a strike against them, not for them.
-Kroenke is a multi-billionaire and significantly wealthier than Chargers owner Dean Spanos or Raiders owner Mark Davis. True. But Goldman Sachs is backing the Carson project and their assets dwarf those of Kroenke. So, in relation to the NFL in L.A., this supposed Kroenke edge is not necessarily as significant of an advantage that some would deem it to be.
-The Rams are not the only franchise with some portion of a ready-made fan base in Los Angeles. All three teams could make that claim to one degree or another. Many indicators suggest that the Raiders are still the market's favored team, including this one. Either way, each of the three teams have respectable backing in the city/region and would undoubtedly pick up masses of additional fans within the market upon moving there.
-Kroenke originally bought 30 percent of the Rams on the explicit precondition that the organization be allowed to move to St. Louis and away from the L.A. area.
If Kroenke and the Rams are the best bet to get it right in L.A., then why did Kroenke purchase a large minority interest in the organization based upon a strict agreement that they be allowed to exit the L.A. market in 1995? Why are the Rams the best bet to get it right this time when they obviously did not accomplish that end when they were there before?
-Of the three owners involved, Kroenke is the only one who worked to ensure his franchise move away from L.A. when the franchise was located there. With that understood, why then should he get first crack at getting L.A. back, particularly with the market he moved to working hard to provide him with another new stadium?
-Common sense would indicate that Kroenke would not be willing to offer to assist two other teams in finding stadium solutions if he were confident that Inglewood could or would prevail over Carson on even terms. It clearly speaks to the vast progress that has been made of late by Carson.
In my estimation, this reported tactic by Kroenke was not a move made from a position of power, but rather, a reactionary counter made from a compromised position in an effort to gain an upper hand that he does not feel he currently has.
If Kroenke did not feel that extreme measures were needed to gain support for a prospective Rams move to Inglewood, then clearly the aforementioned plan of attack would not be one being considered for utilization.
-If Kroenke is truly willing to help the Chargers and Raiders gain successful stadium resolutions in some way, shape or form -- with one of those team being a possible addition in Inglewood while working with another to somehow assist them in their current market -- how is Kroenke remotely acting in good faith towards St. Louis when doing nothing whatsoever to work with the Task Force here?
Simply put, he is not -- as should be obvious.
How would him offering to help anywhere and everywhere but in his current market possibly be acting in good faith and in a manner that the other NFL owners could justify voting for? How could they support him ahead of two owners who have worked much longer to find stadium solutions at home while playing in the league's two most antiquated venues all while having an alternative plan that would keep them in-state if they move?
It was already evident that Kroenke was not working with St. Louis and the Task Force when Governor Nixon said recently that he has not spoken to Kroenke regarding stadium efforts in the last 18 months. You can bet that the Governor has shared this information with Commissioner Roger Goodell, too.
If Bonsignore has this pegged, then Silent Stan is working diligently to get out of his current market, instead of working diligently to find a solution within it -- as required by the same relocation rules that he agreed to when signing on to become majority owner of the St. Louis Rams.
Using the assumption that Kroenke is simultaneously working to (a) move the Rams to L.A., (b) considering helping two other franchises attain new facilities and (c) doing nothing to work towards or consider what may eventually be a fully approved stadium plan in St. Louis, one can conclude that Kroenke is not remotely working within the confines of the NFL's relocation guidelines and bylaws.
-Even if Kroenke is indeed willing to go to these extreme measures, there are no guarantees that Spanos and/or Davis will choose to work with Kroenke under his terms rather than work in Carson or at home under their own. For that matter, there is no certainly that the NFL would fall in line to back a complete shunning of a local market and Task Force that will likely have a stadium plan ready to go by the fall that has worked in lock-step with the league throughout the entirety of the process.
Is Dean the Don Regarding Relocation?
Why?
Specifically, Spanos is highly respected, influential and well regarded by the consensus of NFL owners. Additionally, some assert -- such as Kevin Acee of UT San Diego -- that Spanos currently has the votes secured to block St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke from moving to L.A. if he ultimately attempts to do so. It doesn't hurt Spanos' cause that he has been seeking a facility resolution for nearly 15 years.
Thus, this could go one of two ways -- barring unforeseen progress in the Chargers home market of San Diego:
On on hand, Spanos could theoretically strike a deal with Kroenke on a joint venture into the City of Angels. If that were to occur, he would call off the dogs, per se, and ask owners to allow Silent Stan to leave St. Louis. Relocation guidelines or not, if Spanos gives the Committee on L.A. Opportunities a thumbs up towards an attempted Kroenke move, it would seemingly increase Kroenke's chances of gaining approval to do so.
On the other hand, if Spanos -- who apparently isn't a fan of Kroenke -- continues to line up support to block Kroenke and/or gains approval to move to Carson, it will be a no-go for Stan in regard to attaining the votes necessary for relocation. The league is not going to approve both Carson and Inglewood.
In short, if Spanos continues to pursue Carson, he is building a strong case -- with the help of former NFL executive Carmen Policy -- to triumph over Inglewood. However, if Stan can convince Spanos to work on a joint project in Inglewood, then Kroenke would have a much easier time securing relocation approval.
Meanwhile, let us not forget that the St. Louis Task Force will ultimately have a say on how things play out. After all, if St. Louis is the only local market to secure an approved new stadium plan, it will be tough for the league to justify a Kroenke move -- if ultimately attempted -- irregardless of the stance that Spanos eventually settles upon.
Task Force Entrenched
The St. Louis Task Force remains optimistic that they will successfully navigate through a variety of challenges to ultimately keep the NFL in St. Louis.
But what about the Rams?
To be clear, the folks working steadfastly to secure a new downtown riverfront stadium development remain focused first upon retaining the city's current franchise.
Once again, that has not changed.
Could that approach eventually be adjusted? Sure. But it will not be altered unless the time comes that it becomes necessary to do so, and that stage has not yet been reached.
Looming Lawsuits
On a related note, sources close to the situation continue to express confidence in the likelihood of positive resolutions being obtained regarding city and state level stadium lawsuits and the ultimate realization of the necessary funding required for a new downtown NFL-centered development.
With an important NFL league meeting coming quickly in August, it is obvious that the sooner these things can be put to bed, the better it is for pro-stadium efforts.
Silent Stan
After extensively studying Kroenke's history in recent years, one thing has become clear: he is a world-class poker player capable of hiding his true intentions even from those closest to him.
In addition, nothing gets out of Kroenke's camp that isn't intended to get out of Kroenke's camp.
What am I getting at here?
While things appear to be clear in some regards as to what Kroenke does or does not want in relation to the Rams, there are indications from his past that what we think we see may not be what we are seeing.
Yes, he has made it appear clear that he is strongly interested in Los Angeles. If he were not doing so, he would not be (a) in position to potentially gain that market, (b) watching St. Louis move at a very rapid pace to secure funding for a new stadium designed to keep the Rams and/or (c) also setting himself up for other lucrative potential end games.
What does he truly desire in the end?
Please keep in mind that Kroenke has no reason not to pursue Inglewood vigorously at this time.
Why?
At this moment, there are no cemented, absolute guarantees that the local Task Force is going to close on securing public funding for a new riverfront stadium development.
With that understood, why would Kroenke not move forward aggressively in L.A. -- even if considering St. Louis -- when knowing that there is at least some possibility that local stadium efforts somehow falter in the end?
With Carson moving quickly, a sit-back-and-wait approach from Kroenke would put him in position to be blocked from L.A. and possibly miss out on public funding in St. Louis.
That, of course, would be a lose-lose proposition.
Right now, Kroenke is moving towards a win-win.
In the end, he is going to win with his land in Inglewood regardless of whether an NFL stadium is ever built there. That is irrefutable.
If the nation's eight largest landowner ends up doing nothing more in Ingelwood than what he still does as his day job -- develop real estate -- he will still generate a terrific economic gain via his purchase there.
If St. Louis comes through and he (a) decides to stay or (b) attempts to move but does not prevail, then he ultimately will obtain a new state of the art venue at home and garner a myriad of new revenue streams while increasing his franchise value significantly -- all without paying any relocation fees or other related moving costs.
Thus, like it or not, Kroenke is playing it smart in many ways. He's moving towards victory, regardless of whether he winds up in L.A. with the Rams, in L.A. with another team, in L.A. with an expansion franchise, in Denver with the Broncos or in St. Louis with the Rams.
It may be an ugly way to do business and it may be hated in St. Louis, but Kroenke is likely going to come out ahead in one way or another, regardless of how it all plays out.
That is, unless he is already pushing things too far both in regard to his reported aggressive approach towards L.A. and his lack of communication with St. Louis.
What if his complete shunning of St. Louis backfires at the league level and his obvious disregard for the league's relocation rules comes back to bite him? And what if he ultimately poisons the Gateway City well to the point that the fan and corporate base will not fully support the Rams with him at the helm?
Kroenke is walking a bit of a tightrope with his ultra-aggressive play. These types of plays usually either win out big or flame out badly. One gets the feeling that both outcomes are real possibilities at the moment.
Denver, anyone? An Inglewood retail center?
Who knows. An array of end games remain possible. The Rams to L.A. is obviously a very viable possibility depending on how a variety of things play out. In turn, the Rams remaining in place is a real option as well, again, depending on how certain factors come together over the next few months.
Stay tuned...
RamzFanz
Damnit
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 9,029
This is rubbish. PSLs are not ticket sales, try to get in a game with a PSL.
You refuse to acknowledge that you were wrong about the additional millions so it's no longer worth discussing.
You have hundreds of posts in a few months and less than a dozen not in this thread. I smell an agenda and not an honest one.
RAMSinLA
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2015
- Messages
- 3,175
Everyone involved but the fans already knows exactly which team or teams will move to LA and where they will play. There is only a question about how to proceed that is left to solve.
Once that is agreed to then and only then we will be let in on it. Anything found on line or in print at this point is pointless.
Once that is agreed to then and only then we will be let in on it. Anything found on line or in print at this point is pointless.
The Ripper
Starter
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 794
- Name
- Rip
There was no relocation fee the move was rejected. Georgia offered 26 million so do you think 3 million more would have change votes from owners who didn't get anything from the fee. The other fact is that the NFL sets the relocation fee not the owner so it doesn't matter. If Kroenke offered 100 million and then the NFL said 250 million would you say the same thing no because the league is the one that determines it.
PSL gives the holder the right to purchase a ticket and as such are considered advanced ticket sales.
Go read the CBA because PSL's are considered revenue if not used for stadium construction. This is from the CBA at the time.
(x)(1) Without limiting the foregoing, except as specified in subsections (x)(2) through (x)(7) below, DGR shall include all revenues from Personal Seat Licenses (“PSLs”) received by, or received by a third party and used, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of, the NFL or any Team or Team Affiliate, without any deduction for taxes or other expenses. Such revenues shall be allocated in equal portions, commencing in the League Year in which they are received, over the remaining life of the PSL, subject to a maximum allocation period of fifteen years; provided, however, that interest from the League Year the revenues are received until the League Years the revenues are allocated into DGR shall be imputed and included in DGR, in equal portions over such periods, calculated on an annual compounded basis using the Treasury Bill rate published in The Wall Street Journal of February 1 during the League Year in which the revenues are received. Each equal portion of PSL revenues allocated into DGR, plus an equal portion of the imputed interest specified above, shall be referred to as the “Maximum Annual Allocation Amount.” (x)(2) To the extent that PSL revenues are used to pay for the construction of a new stadium or for stadium renovation(s) that increase DGR (regardless of whether the stadium is owned by a public authority or a private entity (including, but not limited to, the NFL, any Team or any Team Affiliate)), and if such PSL revenues have received a waiver of any League requirement of sharing of “gross receipts,” then such PSL revenues will not be included in a particular League Year in DGR or in Excluded DGR. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the maximum exclusion of PSL revenues each League Year from DGR shall be equal to any increase in DGR that directly results from such stadium construction or renovation (including through any spillover from Excluded DGR) as calculated in subsections (x)(3) through (x)(7) below.
Last edited:
The Ripper
Starter
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 794
- Name
- Rip
Who does? The guidelines are subjective so it's the owners choice. If the guidelines were changed to objective which the court said in Raiders I and the Congressional hearings then none of the 3 teams would qualify.
The Ripper
Starter
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 794
- Name
- Rip
The relocation guidelines are almost the same as they were in 1995. The only major change is in regards to the home market notification and the requirement for local meetings. Amy Trask talked about the changes after the Raiders moved to LA and the relocation guidelines along with the fines that were put in place in 1984. The changes were both in effect in 1995.
PROCEDURES FOR PROPOSED FRANCHISE RELOCATIONS
Article 8.5 of the NFL Constitution and Bylaws vests in the Commissioner the authority to
"interpret and from time to time establish policy and procedure in respect to the provisions of the Constitution and Bylaws and any enforcement thereof." Set forth below are procedures and policy to apply to League consideration, pursuant to Section 4.3 of the Constitution and Bylaws, of any proposed transfer of a home territory. These provisions were established in December of 1984 and remain in effect.
Section 4.3 requires prior approval by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the member
clubs of the League (the normal voting margin for League business) before a club may transfer its franchise or playing site to a different city either within or outside its home territory. While the following provisions apply by their terms to a proposed transfer to a different home territory, a transfer of a club's playing site to a different location within its home territory may also raise issues of League-wide significance. Accordingly, the pre-Annual Meeting notification date prescribed in section (A)(1) tjelow also applies to a proposed intra-territory relocation, and the Commissioner may require that some or all of the following procedures be followed with respect to such a move.
A. Notice and Evaluation of the Proposed Transfer
Before any club may transfer its franchise or playing site outside its current home territory, the club must submit a proposal for such transfer to the League on the following basis:
1 . A club proposing a transfer outside its home territory must give written notice of the proposed transfer to the Commissioner no later than 30 days prior to the opening date of the Annual Meeting in the year in which the club proposes to commence play in a new location. Such notice will be accompanied by a "statement of reasons' in support of the proposed transfer that will include the information outlined in Part B below.
2. The Commissioner will, with the assistance of appropriate League committees, evaluate the proposed transfer and report to the membership; if possible, he will do so within 20 days of his receipt of the club's notice and accompanying "statement of reasons." The Commissioner may also convene a special committee to perform fact finding or other functions with respect to any such proposed transfer.
3. Following the Commissioner's report on the proposed transfer, the transfer will be presented to the membership for action in accordance with the Constitution and Bylaws, either at a Special Meeting of the League held for that purpose or at the Annual Meeting.
B. "Statement of Reasons" for the Proposed Transfer
Any club proposing a transfer outside its home territory must, in its accompanying "statement of reasons," furnish information to the Commissioner essential to consideration of whether such a move is justified and whether it is in the League's interest.
In this connection, the club proposing to transfer must present in writing its views to why its recent financial experience would support a relocation of the club. Such information would include a comparison of the club's home revenues with League averages and medians; past and projected ticket sales and other stadium revenues at both the existing and proposed locations; and operating profits or losses during the most recent four seasons. The club should also comment on any other factors it regards as relevant to the League's consideration of the proposed transfer, including but not limited to operations of other professional or college sports in the existing and proposed home territories, and the effects of the proposed transfer on NFL scheduling patterns, travel requirements, current divisional alignments, traditional rivalries. League-wide television patterns and interests, the quality of stadium facilities, and fan and public perceptions of the NFL and its member clubs.
To permit such a review, at least the following information will accompany the "statement of reasons" for the proposed transfer:
1 . A copy of the club's existing stadium lease and any other agreements relating to the club's use of its current stadium (e.g., concession agreements, box suite agreements, scoreboard advertising agreements) or to a stadium authority's or municipality's provision of related facilities (e.g., practice facilities).
2. Audited financial statements for the club for the fiscal years covering the preceding four seasons.
3. An assessment of the suitability of the club's existing stadium, costs of and prospects for making any desired improvements to the stadium, and the status of efforts to negotiate such improvements with the stadium authority.
4. A description and financial analysis of the projected lease and operating terms available to the club in its proposed new location.
5. A description and financial analysis of the stadium lease and operating terms available to the club in its existing home territory, on a basis that permits comparison with the projected arrangements in the proposed new location.
6. A budget projection, using accepted League charts of account, showing a projected profit and loss statement for the fiscal years covering the first three seasons in the proposed new location.
C. Factors to be Considered in Evaluating the Proposed Transfer
While the League has analyzed many factors in making expansion and team-move decisions in the past, the Commissioner will also give consideration to the factors listed below, among others, in reporting to the membership on any proposed transfer outside a home territory. Such factors were contained in a bill reported by a Senate committee in 1 984; they essentially restate matters that the League has considered vital in connection with team location decisions in the past. Accordingly, any club proposing to transfer should, in its submission to the Commissioner's office, present the club's position as to the bearing of these factors on its proposed transfer, stating specifically why such a move is regarded as justified on these standards:
1 . The adequacy of the stadium in which the team played its home games in the previous season, and the willingness of the stadium or arena authority to remedy any deficiencies in such facility;
2. The extent to which fan loyalty to and support for the team has been demonstrated during the team's tenure in the existing community;
3. The extent to which the team, directly or indirectly, received public financial support by means of any publicly financed playing facility, special tax treatment and any other form of public financial support;
4. The degree to which the ownership or management of the team has contributed
to any circumstance which might otherwise demonstrate the need for such re-
location;
5. Whether the team has incurred net operating losses, exclusive of depreciation
and amortization, sufficient to threaten the continued financial viability of the
team;
6. The degree to which the team has engaged in good faith negotiations with appropriate persons concerning terms and conditions under which the team would continue to play its games in such community or elsewhere within its current home territory;
7. Whether any other team in the League is located in the community in which the team is currently located;
8. Whether the team proposes to relocate to a community in which no other team in the League is located; and
9. Whether the stadium authority, if public, is not opposed to such relocation.
Any club proposing to transfer will have a full opportunity to state its position to the membership and to make its case for the proposed transfer. In order to fully assess a proposed transfer in light of the variety of League interests involved, and to fairly resolve the interests of all parties, it is essential that the membership be fully apprised of the relevant facts with respect to any proposed transfer. The procedures and policies outlined above are directed to that end.
ramfaninsd
UDFA
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2015
- Messages
- 43
Specifically, Spanos is highly respected, influential and well regarded by the consensus of NFL owners. Additionally, some assert -- such as Kevin Acee of UT San Diego -- that Spanos currently has the votes secured to block St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke from moving to L.A. if he ultimately attempts to do so. It doesn't hurt Spanos' cause that he has been seeking a facility resolution for nearly 15 years.
i am sure stan has the votes to block dean and as a resident of san diego it is hogwash they have been seeking a resolution they reject everything and criticize everybody. fabiani is a joke!!!
i am sure stan has the votes to block dean and as a resident of san diego it is hogwash they have been seeking a resolution they reject everything and criticize everybody. fabiani is a joke!!!
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 35,026
- Name
- Stu
First off - keep it civil. Calling something a poster says "rubbish" is akin to saying they are full of shit.
Second, don't address what you perceive as a member's motives. Some have issues that are more important than others and this may be what is most on their mind with almost nothing actually football related to report. I don't think there is a person on this thread that doesn't have at least some kind of leaning on the issue. It should be of no surprise that an LA fan wants the Rams to return and that a St Louis fan wants them to stay. Others will continue to think their POV is the right one regardless.
Not sure about the rest of the members here but I am growing quite weary of the back and forth between you and The Ripper on the one issue. Looks more like semantics to me and semantics can be argued to death with no resolution. Time to move on.
Always provide a link when you quote something. And can you tell me what DGR stands for? BTW - honestly? That paragraph is the most ambiguous thing I've seen in quite some time. Reminds me of the relocation guidelines.
Same as I said though to Ramz - you two need to either find an ending point to this line or just walk away from it.
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
Pretty much, honestly the only team that probably meets the guidelines are the Raiders, and that's only because they're so cash strapped they've gotten to the point where they just put up their hands and say "We'll do whatever with whoever will help us".
Only 6 months to go....
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 35,026
- Name
- Stu
I have to agree with this. I've asked multiple times specifically what has changed and can't recall it ever being answered beyond vague references of being more difficult for owners to go rogue.
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
Are you suggesting this isn't 433 pages of everyone talking about how I'm right and how amazed they are about how right I am? I guess I should start reading some of the posts in here..
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
Can you trust any of those teams based on those conditions? The Raiders have no money and a bad team, the Chargers have no money and an average at best team. The Rams have a pretty average team as well, but at least they have money.
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
The #STLNFL movement continues to grow and attract supporters. One supporter is Joe Buck, the lead play-by-play man for the NFL on Fox who has called St. Louis his home for his entire life. Joe lends his voice and enthusiasm to an updated stadium fly-through video. The new video includes the latest renderings shared with the Major League Soccer officials who recently visited St. Louis on a fact-finding mission to explore potential MLS expansion.
Watch Buck Video
Watch Buck Video
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 35,026
- Name
- Stu
I've had a great time debating this issue with pretty much all of you here. The funny thing is that after 433 pages, I think I could go back to page one and have the same things I "know" hold true. How about a top ten things we "know"?
10. The Dome lease was idiotic and completely one sided toward Rams ownership
9. Stan is a multi-billionaire
8. St Louis via the task force that was apparently not actually put in motion by the Governor is working on a Riverfront Stadium plan that is as of yet incomplete but in no way constitutes the Governor doing anything toward a stadium at the riverfront location. (um... ok... I didn't know that last part until the AG told us so
)
7. Stan was part of the group trying to land an expansion team in St Louis and later offered to pony up so that Georgia could afford the move and pay off the NFL
6. The owners turned down the initial request to move from LA to St Louis until Shaw threatened to sue on anti-trust issues that would have potentially cost them roughly $2.2 BILLION and the NFL attorneys advised they would probably lose.
5. Stan has never publicly said he wants to move nor has he said he likes the Riverfront proposal nor has he said he knows Kevin Demoff nor has he said "my name is Stan".
4. Stan was born in Missouri, raised in Missouri, attended college in Missouri, has his HQ in Missouri, was named after a HOF baseball player for the hometown Cards, has his main residence in Missouri, and his son graduated from Mizzou
3. The NFL is an exclusive group of billionaires formed with non-profit status for the ultimate profit of NFL team owners and pretty much nothing else.
2. Goodhell and Grubman have perfected the technique of saying a whole bunch of words out of both sides of their face without saying anything AT ALL.
And the number one thing I think I know is...... we are at a staggering 433 pages and I know about as much about where the Rams will be playing in '16 as I did on page one.
But like I said, it's been fun reading the different views and interpretations. I've only had to block a handful of members from this thread and to me, that is astounding when you think of the bar @-X- set when he created this place and how tough that really is to achieve here on the interwebs.
I know there are biases among members from different areas and eras. But this really has been pretty much a troll free zone as demonstrated by the lack of need for banning anyone and the lack of PMs I receive about this thread. I receive a few PMs but honestly, no where near as many as I expected when we decided to allow the thread some 6 months ago.
I wanted to thank you guys for keeping a pretty even keel on a hugely tough issue for the fans.
Cheers to y'awlz.
10. The Dome lease was idiotic and completely one sided toward Rams ownership
9. Stan is a multi-billionaire
8. St Louis via the task force that was apparently not actually put in motion by the Governor is working on a Riverfront Stadium plan that is as of yet incomplete but in no way constitutes the Governor doing anything toward a stadium at the riverfront location. (um... ok... I didn't know that last part until the AG told us so
)7. Stan was part of the group trying to land an expansion team in St Louis and later offered to pony up so that Georgia could afford the move and pay off the NFL
6. The owners turned down the initial request to move from LA to St Louis until Shaw threatened to sue on anti-trust issues that would have potentially cost them roughly $2.2 BILLION and the NFL attorneys advised they would probably lose.
5. Stan has never publicly said he wants to move nor has he said he likes the Riverfront proposal nor has he said he knows Kevin Demoff nor has he said "my name is Stan".
4. Stan was born in Missouri, raised in Missouri, attended college in Missouri, has his HQ in Missouri, was named after a HOF baseball player for the hometown Cards, has his main residence in Missouri, and his son graduated from Mizzou
3. The NFL is an exclusive group of billionaires formed with non-profit status for the ultimate profit of NFL team owners and pretty much nothing else.
2. Goodhell and Grubman have perfected the technique of saying a whole bunch of words out of both sides of their face without saying anything AT ALL.
And the number one thing I think I know is...... we are at a staggering 433 pages and I know about as much about where the Rams will be playing in '16 as I did on page one.
But like I said, it's been fun reading the different views and interpretations. I've only had to block a handful of members from this thread and to me, that is astounding when you think of the bar @-X- set when he created this place and how tough that really is to achieve here on the interwebs.
I know there are biases among members from different areas and eras. But this really has been pretty much a troll free zone as demonstrated by the lack of need for banning anyone and the lack of PMs I receive about this thread. I receive a few PMs but honestly, no where near as many as I expected when we decided to allow the thread some 6 months ago.
I wanted to thank you guys for keeping a pretty even keel on a hugely tough issue for the fans.
Cheers to y'awlz.
The Ripper
Starter
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 794
- Name
- Rip
The Raiders have Levi in their market which is one of the one guidelines that is most scrutinized
- Status